politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This guy is the real deal and everything, but I wouldn’t begrudge him what I have for myself, which is some investments in broad index funds, mainly. Something to rely on when I finally fuck off from the office.
Don't forget he's a former teacher and career military, he's got some pensions going
Have fun choosing when to retire based on whether the stock market recently crashed.
I knew 3 people who had to put off their retirements around 2009 so the market could recover.
There are targeted retirement funds that target a retirement year and slowly transition from stocks into bonds/less risky positions as that date approaches. Those are generally a better idea for retirement savings than broader market funds for the reason you described.
And it's not like retirement immediately liquidates your 401k. There's just some minimum that you need to take out per year which isn't very high. Roth IRA's don't have a minimum distrust requirement until after the death of the owner.
Pensions avoided each person needing to individually make all those choices by centralizing the same thing into an efficiently managed centralized process with rrliable results. The only thing splitting it up by individuals did was increase the overhead on retirements to funnel the money to the wealthy while allowing the elderly to be blamed for not taking care of their own retirement.
I agree, 401ks are stupid and were invented as more of a tax loophole for the wealthy than as an every-man's retirement fund. But they're cheaper for business so that's what we're stuck with.
That's not what I was talking about at all, though. I was just pointing out that if you have enough money to save for retirement, there are ways to relatively easily invest and grow your money while still mitigating risk and staying mostly hands-off.
Fun fact about pensions. At their height, only about 45% of private-sector workers actually had a pension. Having one was undoubtedly better, on average, than having a 401k today. But they weren't the utopian retirement solution that we (including myself) like to pretend they were. A majority of the population didn't benefit from them at all, and the less-fortunate were essentially in the same or worse spot as they're in today.
Yeah, but while the number of employees who have acess to retirement options (68%) is higher, the number who chose to participate (51%) isn't significantly higher as of 2021. This probably includes some crappy options not nearly on par with pensions.
Another problem is the shift from pensions to personal options is also used by conservstives to say we don't really need social security. Honestly I would rather change social security to have a higher payout rate and collect more for it by removing the cap and collecting it from businesses based on sales/business income (not just profits). That would balance out the jobs being lost to automation while tying retirement to the economy as a whole. With a solid guaranteed level of retirement income the option to save up would not be a necessity to actually retire.
It’s as if you’ve never heard of asset allocation.
Ah yes, the thing the average working class person needs to understand in order to retire.
Bro, your choice. I find it quite odd that you’re unable to see the wisdom of holding assets that appreciate with time.
It’s not especially hard to grasp these concepts. I’m teaching them to my 10-year old.
I guess the people whose income hasn't kept up with productivity should be spending the money they don't have on assets that appreciate with time instead of taking advantage of employer 401k matching. Great advice!
By your own admission, you know 3 people with retirement accounts. I’m not talking about people without a single dollar of discretionary income, and nor were you - at least not before you engaged in this discussion, in defense of what is clearly a dogmatic view.
Why don’t we stop this, you go your way, I’ll go mine.
I knew three people with retirement accounts who wanted to retire around 2009.
I also know a lot of other people with a wide variety of retirement accounts, pensions, and other investments. I have savings in IRAs, 401k, and will receive both state and federal retirement payments.
But since you apparently think I can only know the things I mentioned this is clearly unproductive.
I'm planning to retire at age 60, so in an absolute worst case scenario I'll be able to put it off a few years.